Muhammad Haque diagnoses Ken Livingstone's commitment to fight a pro-democratic campaign over the needs of London as scheduled in May 2012

The Muhammad Haque London Commentary has been posted on the web site of the Wandsworth Guardian title at 1030 Hrs GMT Today Saturday 26 february 2011.

In the commentary, which has ben prompted by the 'exclusive' interview that title has been carrying with Ken Livingstone. also published online by that local newspaper web site.

Muhammad Haque has long commented exclusively as the evidence shows, on the role Ken Livingstone has played in the “London political office” circuit. According to Muhammad Haque’s studies of Ken Livingstone, the former ‘London mayor’ and ex-leader of the over-hyped Greater London Council [=GLC] has been a deterrent to local democratic movements in London.

Those whom Ken Livingstone has ‘befriended’ over the decades, have been almost exclusively people who have either sought or been given one type of preferment or another via the outfits where Livingstone has held a decision-making power-linked post at one time or another. Other than those, Ken Livingstone has not got any citable number of political allies who are his allies because of the principle full stop.

Throughout Livingstone’s career in elected offices,. he has been criticised over the generation of cronies around his given tenure in a given office.

This is something that Muhammad Haque sought to focus attention on DECADES before any of the ‘mainstream’ media were prepared to even recognise its existence.

In the three years or so since creeping allegations began to mar Ken Livingstone's ‘re-election’ ‘campaign’ of May 2008, Muhammad Haque has observed on the record that Livingstone has got to deal with this aspect of his ‘political career flaw’. But Livingstone has left it aside. In fact his fabricated acolytes have sought to carry on the denial thus damaging any image of a politician with integrity that Ken Livingstone must configure himself to be.

There is now undeniable evidence that those who have sought to promote the image of the invented ‘London-scene’ ‘politician’ Oona King are not sitting idly even after they had fast-tracked the ‘former’ ‘East End ‘ “MP” into the ‘House of Peers’ - thus giving her a look of ‘parliamentary platform’ ‘legitimacy’ that evidentially baffles the people in Tower Hamlets who had been left with no option but to reject her in Bethnal Green and Bow in May 2005.

The evidence of this activity to ‘derail’ [see more later in this commentary on the interesting word, ‘derail’] Ken Livingstone are spotted all over the “mainstream” “media” where strange claims - all unfounded on facts - are planted regularly under all kinds of excuses to create a ‘persona’ called ‘Oona King’ as a recognisable political entity’.

In contrast, Ken Livingstone is berated at the readiest of excuses. Nothing is more fantastic than the ‘allegation’ that Ken Livingstone has taken the dirty [in the sense of being dubious, less than legitimate] money form the Iranian regime!

It is entirely factually correct that Ken Livingstone has been one of the ‘personalities’ from the UK who has been making regular [or at least ‘periodic] appearances in the PRESSTV slots. But the venom that has been aimed at Ken Livingstone by accusing him of links with the Iranian regime because of the PRESSTV appearances is not accidental. Why? Because even one or more than one of Ken Livingstone’s ‘accusers’ have themselves been recipients of the Iranian regime’s cash via PRESSTV!

So why do they hurl their venom at Ken Livingstone?

This question has been raised a few times already but these accusers do not answer. Because they know that they are being deliberately and unjustifiably venomous and are picking on Ken Livingstone because of his political stance on international issues REGARDLESS of his appearances on PRESSTV.

Had his accusers been objective and fair then they would have investigated Yvonne Ridley, Lauren Booth, Andrew Gilligan AND a hundred or so OTHERS from the UK who have made various appearances on slots broadcast by the PRESSTV network.

Some of the ‘guests’ on PRESSTV have included the likes of ‘Charlie Wolf’, an American-accented and demeanoured die-hard critic of everything ‘Revolutionary’ Iranian. Charlie Wolf in effect constitutes almost one half of the duo of GWBush Brigade that has operated on the British media stands for as long as recent and contemporary memory stretches.
Yet the ‘mainstream’ media ‘commentators’ do not raise one hair of discomfort at the role of Janet Daly or Charlie Wolf. Or indeed that of Anne Leslie, the most effective Right wing, reactionary, pro-empire, pro-discrimination propagandist that has been allowed to dominate the BBC and allied ‘mainstream British media’ platforms and slots for the past at least 20 years.

Against this evidence, Ken Livingstone would do well to review his tactics as well as reviewing his ‘principles’ as far as those affect his use of the intention of his use of any public powers when in office or near it. If Livingstone either refuses to heed this or fails to then he alone will be the main party to blame for the failure to restore a pro-democratic political atmosphere in London as far as that is possible by linking the electoral behaviour of the registered eligible voters in May 2012.

There is a lot more that Ken Livingstone must do to prove his relevance to the ordinary people of the East End of London. He has got no option but to stop deterring democratic and being party to the pro-democracy movement in the East End of London.

[To be continued]






Interested to observe that in your account as published of the exclusive interview with Ken Livingstone, there is no mention of the words “audit”, “accountability”, “transparency”, “democracy", "discrimination”,“prejudice, “ethics”, “morality” or indeed of “poverty”.
Could it be because neither Ken Livingstone nor you [that is your publication] referred to the concepts denoted by these words?
Or was it, just by chance, the fact that either of you did mention to one of more of these words [quoted above] and it was decided, afterwards prepublication not to recognise their importance to the potential voters of the suitability of the candidate who is one of only two [so far] declared candidates that can electorally return to that post after the scheduled election in just over a year’s time? In the context of the events that have been reported by the ‘mainstream’ ‘British media’ from the Arabic-speaking countries [in the past five weeks or so], of which Libya has been being treated with the most intensive Western Media attention, what would the man who has occupied one or more than one “elected” office in the name of the people of London [a Borough or of the “Greater London” area itself have to say by way of sharing his views on the rights of ordinary people in the context of long-in-post ‘rulers’?
I am asking this in view of the fact that in the period since Oona King’s promoters encountered a slight ‘delay’ [my diagnosis] in installing her in the post of official candidate of the Bliared Party, Ken Livingstone has been given the sort of media configuration that inevitably leads to the temptation to conclude that he is not quite democratic! This looks set to get even more intense as polling day gets nearer.
And Livingstone LOOKS [as he did last Sunday when he shared the BBC TV slot with Andrew Marr] resigned to play it ‘safe’ so that he does not upset the promoters of Oona King or the agenda that they are running. It is also quite possible, going by the contens of your report, that Ken Livingstone is playing it too safe and is thus failing to raise even those issues that he could raise without having to fear internal Blair Party ‘reprisals’ from Oona King’s entrenched promoters! If this is indeed the ‘reasoning’ then London is going to get even less democratic than it has been under the CONDEM regime. And that London will get even less accountable, less transparent and less ethical under a newly-rubber-stamped [May 2012, as currently scheduled] occupant in the “Onion’.
1030 Hrs London Saturday 26 February 2011